You are on page 1of 33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.

3755 OF 2012

DISTRICT: PUNE

In the matter of Article 226 of the Constitution of India; And In the matter of non Registration of FIR on complaint filed on 5th May 2012 at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune

(Annexure A is a copy of complaint filed )

1.

RAJAGOPALAN SRIDHAR

AGE: 47 Years, OCC; Nil R/a: B-11, Kumar Meadows, Manjiri, Pune-37.

2.

SANJEEV BANGAD AGE: 44 Years, OCC: Nil R/a: H-702, Cosmos, Magarapattacity, Hadapsar, Pune-28. VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra 2. Mr. U.A Sonawane

.Petitioners

..Respondent No 1 ..Respondent No 2

Sr. Police Inspector, Bund Garden Police Station, Pune.

TO, THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE OTHER HONBLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER

ABOVENAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1.

The Petitioners are citizens of India and are residing at the aforementioned address. The petitioners are

arraigned as accused Nos. 1 & 2 in C.R. No. 387 of 2009 lodged by Synfera Engineering & Construction Limited (hereinafter referred their to as the

Complainant);

through

authorized

representative Mr Nilesh Vallabhdas Dhanani who is a close relative of Tulsi Tanti and was in fact never ever connected to the activities of shipping and he is a director of another Tulsi Tanti family controlled company i.e. Sarjan Realities limited, at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune, stating that the accused conspired to illegally siphon money from the business of the Complainant. The Petitioners state that they have no criminal track record and Petitioner No.1 has a track record of over 24 years experience in Gov., Banks and Companies and Petitioner No.2 who is engineering and management Graduate has a track record of over 16 years in various organisations. Respondent No 1 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondent no 2 is the Police Inspector (crime) at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune.

2.

The Petitioners state that Mr. Nilesh Vallabhdas Dhanani filed complaint with Bund Garden Police Station on 18th August 2009 wherein details of alleged wrong /illegal transactions were detailed (Annexure B is copy of complaint filed by Mr.

Nilesh

Vallabhdas Dhanani).

The

said

complaint did not mention that that the Petitioners were employees of the complainant nor it mention that Mr. Nilesh Dhanani was holding power on behalf of Synefra Engineering and Constructions limited to file the complaint. The said complaint does not find any mention either in the FIR or in the charge sheet however the FIR does mention that information about alleged crime was received in writing at 1830 HRS on 18th September 2009 which is patently incorrect (Annexure C is copy of FIR dated 18th September 2009). The complaint filed on 18th August 2009 and the statement of Mr. Nilesh Dhanani recorded on 18th September 2009 and which only forms part of FIR are materially different in as much as that Mr. Nilesh Dhanani now claimed to have power from complainant to file the complaint though no such board resolution giving power to Mr. Nilesh Dhanani is submitted till date. The statement of Mr. Nilesh Dhanani now claimed the Petitioners to be exemployees of the complainant (Annexure D is statement of Mr. Nilesh Vallabhdas Dhanani, dated 18th September 2009 and is duly

countersigned by the Sr. Police Inspector of Bund Garden Police Station ).

3.

It is a case of the Complainant in the complaint recorded on 18th September 2009 that the

Complainant Company was engaged in shipping business during 2006-08 and that the Petitioners are Ex-Employees of the complainant. It is complainants further case that the accused fraudulently

diverted huge amounts and profits of the Complainant Company to the alleged Shell Company

owned/controlled by the petitioners. It is further case that the accused with malafide intent created number of forged documents and electronic records. He also said that the accused during the period between 2006 and 2008 cheated the complainant company by misrepresenting International Clients to remit part of freight (for and on behalf of the Complainant company) in the Bank accounts with various overseas Banks including Swiss Bank belonging to various Shell companies incorporated by the accused in different parts of the world and such companies are owned and controlled by ex-employees of the complainant company. The petitioners here itself state that this statement is absolutely lie and misleading and that the Petitioners were never in employment of the

Complainant company. The Petitioners further state that by a written communication by the CMD of Suzlon Energy Limited ( hereinafter referred as SEL)

which

employed

the petitioners, it was stated

that SEL was never in control of the activities of the complainant nor its employees as such, apart from the fact that Suzlon Energy Limited which employed the Petitioners, in its RED HERRING PROSPECTUS filed with SEBI on 12th September 2005, at page xvii, in the last paragraph has clearly stated that Suzlon Energy Limited does not exercise any degree of control, directly or indirectly , over the business or operations of any of its associate companies(Annexure E is relevant part of the RED HERRING

PROSPECTUS ) and hence the petitioners humbly states that such statement by the complainant is misleading and malafide is made to deceive the court thus is an act of fraud onto the court. Mr. Harish Mehta who is one of the Directors of Synefra in his affidavit before an Australian court in an admiralty case initially amongst Beluga Shipping, Germany, Headway Shipping, Hong Kong and Suzlon Energy Limited, India, has clearly stated that there was no secondment of Petitioner no 2 who was employed with Suzlon Energy Limited (Annexure F is a copy of the said affidavit). The petitioners also state that the Complainant is a closely held Ltd Company and is not listed on any Stock Exchange

4.

It is stated by the Police Inspector, Bund Garden Police Station, Pune that the Petitioners were arrested by the investigating team on 18th September 2009 at 1900 HRS. Prior to arrest of the Petitioners while the Petitioners were at the Police Station Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar the then Kate was

submitted by the Petitioners a complaint detailing the sequences of events and massive misappropriation of profits of Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited to Promoter owned companies by the Promoters in connivance with other senior management of Suzlon Energy Limited and Jitendra Tanti, Harish Mehta, Kirti Vagadia and others. The Petitioners also

informed the then Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate that the actions of complainant are malafide and substantial facts were withheld including that the complainant company had exited business of shipping on 1st November 2007 by way of a DEED OF ASSIGNMENT dated 1st November 2007 duly signed by a director of complainant company (Annexure G is a copy of the said DEED OF ASSIGNMENT) and wherein 4 ships were transferred to complainants then 100% subsidiary SE Shipping Lines Pte Ltd, Singapore and that the complainant wanted to

victimise the petitioners only to protect exposure of their illegal actions so that another Satyam Computers

like scam did not break out and the real truth behind the huge siphoning of funds is not exposed to the general public. The Petitioners also humbly state that this was at the time soon after the Satyam scam and during this period Suzlon Energy Ltd and the Complainant were making huge losses due to the alleged siphoning of funds of hundreds of crores.

5. The Petitioners further submit that in the complaint given on 18th September 2009, the sequence of events were explained which negated the allegations levelled in the complaint of the Complainant. It was also explained that allegations were based on assumptions with complete disregard to the fact that the complainant had already exited the business of shipping on 1st November 2007 and therefore

transactions after this date could not belong to the complainant. The other transactions prior to

Complainant exiting business of shipping on 1st November 2007, the funds transferred did not belong to the complainant as a few ships were already given to commercial managers and the funds transferred to companies allegedly owned/controlled by Petitioners were funds of these commercial managers and were transferred for valid business purposes. The

Petitioners further state that a court in Germany

where Petitioner No 1 was arrested has given

an

independent finding that the arrest of Petitioner No 1 in India is in some way connected with the findings of the court in Germany wherein the court ruled that Mr. Tulsi Tanti and Suzlon Energy Limited were connected with tax evasion and other acts ( Annexure H is a copy of the referred Judgement along with its convenience English translation )

6.

In the complaint the Petitioners detailed the culture of fraud, misrepresentations, diversions of Public funds and forgery of documents which exist at Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited and wherein

unsuspecting employees of Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited are made to work for promoter (Tanti family) owned other companies and then they also held liable for not supporting diversion of funds from Public listed Suzlon Energy Limited to Promoter owned companies. The complaint filed by the Petitioners included one such email

correspondence dated 19th September 2008, between Petitioner no 1 and Kirti Vagadia (Annexure I) CFO of Suzlon Energy Limited and financial advisor to Mr. Tulsi Tanti wherein an offer of freight obtained by Petitioner no 2 for carriage of Suzlon Energy

Limiteds goods from Europe to USA at USD 165/RT was ultimately not considered and Tanti controlled SE Shipping Lines Pte Ltd, Singapore, was allowed to carry the same cargo at more than 200% to 400% of the cost offered by Petitioner no 2 (Annexure J is set of invoices paid by Suzlon Energy Limited to SE Shipping Lines Pte Ltd, Singapore, wherein freight rate paid is 200% to 400% higher than offered by Petitioner no 2). This clearly shows that any one such as Petitioners who did not support the designs of management to divert funds from Public Listed Suzlon Energy

10

Limited to Tanti family controlled company was to be victimised.

7.

The Petitioners state that

the then Investigating

officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate asked the Petitioners to type complaint on his laptop and the same was duly submitted to him. He assured that he would take

necessary actions but for unknown reasons, did not register the complaint of the Petitioners and

proceeded to investigate only the complaint filed by complainant completely disregarding the facts

submitted in the complaint of the Petitioners. The then Investigating officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate

then went on to get the computer hard discs, pen drives and other information storage devices allegedly recovered from the

11

Petitioners examined by a private forensic laboratory Mahindra Info (Annexure K is a copy of Pachnama wherein de-sealing,

handing over of the computer hard discs, pen drives etc and sealing of the computer hard discs, pen drives and is of after duly examination, signed by is the who

recorded

representative

Mahindra

Info

examined the Computer hard discs, pen drives etc ) who was sponsored by the complainant. It is very likely that substantial evidences

contained in these computer hard discs, pen drives and other information storage devices allegedly recovered from the Petitioners have been tempered with /destroyed at the behest of the complainant. The then Investigating Officer Mr.Sudhakar Kate then went on to send the same computer hard discs, pen drives etc to state forensic laboratory a goods 85 days after they were allegedly recovered from the Petitioners (Annexure L is copy of the covering letter under which the computer hard discs, pen drives were sent to State Forensic Laboratory).

Since

the

arrest

of Petitioners,

12

the

Petitioners had no wherewithal to pursue the non registration of their complaint and the family

members of the Petitioners were also continuously harassed by the police and the complainant due to which they were not staying in Pune. Upon release on bail the Petitioners were threatened by the then Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate to settle the matter with complainants. The affidavit recorded by the Petitioner no 1 and which is submitted to Supreme Court is Annexed M whereas affidavit recorded by Petitioner no 2 is Annexed N. The Petitioner no 2 then filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Pune, for all violations of Statutory Provisions of Law and Human Rights Violations on 15th March 2012 and understandably the then Investigating officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate was transferred on this

complaint. The Petitioners submit that the once the then Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate was transferred the Petitioners re-filed the complaint on 5th May 2012 which is since pending for conversion into FIR. The Petitioners further submit that on around 11th July 2012 the Police Station issued orders for recording statement of Petitioners however the officer at Police Station wanted the Petitioner Complaint translated in Marathi which the

Petitioners did, at their expense, submit just a few days later however despite the same the Complaint remains without any action.

13

8.

The Petitioners state that Jitendra Tanti, a director of Synefra Engineering and Constructions Limited and a brother of Tulsi Tanti, Chairman and Managing Director of Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited, signed ship charter party contracts with Corporate Guarantees of Suzlon Energy Limited for performance of ships chartered by Synefra Engineering and Constructions Limited (Annexure O is a ship hire contract signed by Jitendra Tanti, MD of Synefra Engineering and Constructions

Limited, wherein Corporate Guarantee of Public Listed Suzlon Energy is consented ). The Petitioners state that no board resolution was ever passed by Board of Directors of Suzlon Energy Limited authorising Jitendra Tanti to sign such contracts for and on behalf of Synefra Engineering and

Constructions Limited with Corporate

guarantees

from Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited for personal benefits. The Petitioners further state that though the ships with Corporate Guarantee of Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited were chartered by Synefra Engineering and Constructions Limited, it (Synefra)

did not deploy any funds nor did it ever employ a single person for its shipping business. And the

14

several people, all employed with Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited, were made to look after the business of Tusli Tanti family owned Synefra. Thus Synefra booked massive profits without any employee and any other expense. Even the office set up, stationery, huge travelling costs; etc expenses were borne by Suzlon Energy Limited.

9.

The Petitioners further submit that Harish Mehta, another director of Synefra Engineering and

Constructions Limited and a family friend of Tulsi Tanti, Chairman and Managing Director of Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited, filed an affidavit in a proceeding in an admiralty proceeding in Australia initially amongst Beluga Shipping, Germany, Headway Shipping, Hong Kong and Suzlon Energy Limited, India, wherein a forged board resolution of Synefra (Annexure F is a copy of affidavit filed by Mr. Harish Mehta along with concerned Board Resolution) was submitted with a view to mislead the court and to obtain a favourable order from the concerned court and is thus a fraud onto the court. The board resolution (Annexure F is a copy of the affidavit which contains a copy of Board

Resolution) States that the

15

Board

of

Synefra

Engineering and Constructions Limited f/k/a Suzlon Infrastructure Limited a/k/a Aspen Infrastructure Limited, decided to amend the object clause of its MOA on 30th MARCH 2006 to include Business of Shipping and in the same Board Resolution resolved to commence business of Shipping. The date of 30th March 2006 was put because the first ship M.V.

Beluga Spirit came under control of complainant on 30th March 2006 whereas the fact is the first ship M.V. Beluga Spirit was chartered by Complainant (Synefra) on 24th February 2006 with corporate Guarantee from Suzlon Energy Limited (Annexure O is a copy of the said charter party contract) and the contract was signed by Jitendra Tanti who is another Director of Synefra. The Board Resolution obtained by the petitioners from Registrar of Companies carries date of 24th April 2006 for the same Board Resolution (Annexure P is a copy of the Board of Resolution filed with Registrar of Companies, Pune).

10. The Petitioners further submit that Tulsi Tanti, Kirti Vagadia and others including Auditors of Suzlon Energy Limited fudged the books of accounts of Suzlon Energy Limited by consistently showing

higher sales and profits by way of booking advanced sales on the basis of Received for Shipment Bills of Ladings (Annexure Q is a set of some bills of lading which are marked Received for

16

Shipment). Received for shipment bills of lading only indicate arrival of cargo at port and not shipment (export ) thus does not constitute instrument of title of goods ( as without the goods actually having been loaded onto a ship, the title of ownership of goods does not transfer to third party i.e. ship owner and thus the ownership of goods remain in the name of shipper/exporter) (such Received for Shipment Bills of Ladings are not accepted by any Government of India departments viz Customs, Finance, Commerce etc as any proof of Export) but such Received for Shipment bills of lading were used for 30 to 50% of export sales for each quarter from July 2007 until the Petitioners left the employer Suzlon Energy Limited (Annexure R is a copy of email exchanged between Kirti Vagadia, CFO of SEL, Toin Van Megan, CEO of SEL and Sridhar Rajagopalan wherein details of such bills of ladings and corresponding delays are provided ). This advance sale was manipulated to the extent that in many cases goods did not even reach port and therefore were not even in custody of ship agents

(Annexure S is a copy of email sent by ship agent at Chennai wherein he refused to provide even Received for Shipment Bills of Ladings because the cargo was not in his possession) who would issue Received for Shipment bill of ladings. In any case even the agents at port did not possess any authority from the Ship Owners to issue such Received for Shipment Bills of Lading and thus clearly acted beyond their authorities at the behest of Suzlon Energy Limited. In most of above mentioned cases the goods were actually shipped more than 60 days later thus practically into the end of the following quarter and in some cases more than 90 days i.e. into the quarter after the following quarter ( 2 quarter advance sales) (Annexure R is a copy of relevant email exchange as referred in above) By such abusive advance sales Suzlon Energy Limited beat stock market expectations and the share price of Suzlon Energy Limited zoomed to Rs 2200/share (basis Rs 10/share face value which translates to Rs 460/Share for Rs 2/share current face value). During this period of June 2007 to Dec 2008, Suzlon Energy Limited raised several thousand crores rupees by way of Private Placement of shares, QIB, FCCBs, etc. at artificially inflated share prices. When exports dipped and it was no longer possible for Suzlon Energy

17

Limited to book advance sales,

18

the

company

performance tumbled and so the share price which is currently quoting at Rs 15-16/share. Thus by

artificially inflating books of accounts the ordinary investing Public of India and the world have lost not less than Rs 23000 crore.

11. The Petitioners submit that in a case in Australia where Suzlon Energy Limited and one Headway Shipping Limited, Hong Kong, were parties, Suzlon Energy Limited deposited to court the entire freight outstanding of USD 13.50milion. The court in Australia ordered release of USD 7 million to Headway (Annexure T is a copy of statement filed by the solicitors of Headway Shipping Limited, Hk, wherein details of settlement are mentioned), HK pending decision but in the meantime Headway closed down and the balance USD 6.350 million with Australia Court instead of being retained by Suzlon Energy Limited, was

understandably, given to Tanti family owned S E Shipping Lines Pte Ltd, Singapore. Thus the invoices and books of accounts of Suzlon Energy Limited were manipulated to legalise payment of USD 6.350 million to SE Shipping, Singapore. The investors, Public

Sector Banks and others were thus cheated by Tulsi Tanti and others.

19

12. The Petitioners submit that USD 2.8 million due to commercial managers was also fraudulently and by forging payment advises/invoices, adjusting the books of account was transferred directly/indirectly to Tanti family controlled companies. A part transfer of USD 1.23 to BIP Carriers ( a company directly/indirectly controlled by Tanti family) is (Annexure U is a

copy of account statement of MIT, France, wherein transfer of USD 1.25 million to BIP carriers is refleced). This clearly shows that though the Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited paid the invoices due to paid commercial to Tanti managers family but

fraudulently companies.

controlled

13. The Petitioners further submit that ship hire Invoices from Beluga (Ship Owner) were regularly forged to allow accounting manipulations (Annexure V are copies of original Beluga Shipping Invoices along with corresponding forged invoices).

14. The Petitioners submit that though Tulsi Tanti signed a relationship matrix for business between Suzlon

Energy Limited and S E Shipping Lines Pte Ltd, Singapore ( a Tanti family owned and controlled company in Singapore) whereby business was to be given to SE Shipping Lines pte Ltd, Singapore subject to 15% discount to market freight however Gaurav Bansal, CEO of SE Shipping Lines, Singapore not only demanded much higher than existing freights and the same was paid by Kirti Vagadia, CFO, Suzlon Energy Limited, to fund the acquisition of new ships and expansions business plan of SE Shipping Lines, Singapore. The single transaction annexed caused loss of more than Rs 4 Crores and there are several such transactions (Annexure I is an email exchange between Kirti Vagadia, CFO, SEL, and Sridhar Rajagopalan wherein this loss caused to SEL is mentioned).

20

15. The

complaint shows with evidence how Kirti

Vagadia, CFO, Suzlon Energy Limited, disowned his holy duty towards his employer and also towards the Investing Public and favoured and allowed

significantly higher ship ocean freight to be paid to Tanti controlled companies (Annexure J is a set of Invoices raised by SE Shipping Lines Pte Ltd, Singapore, on SEL with significantly higher freights).

21

16

The Petitioners submit that the Directors and Promoters of Suzlon Energy Limited have been misleading the investing Public by invariably stating that all related party transactions are at arms length transactions and Suzlon Energy Ltd and its employees do not exercise any control on their promoter companies (Annexure W is a copy of the relevant part of the PLACEMENT DOCUMENT dated 17th December 2007, made to prospecting investors towards Qualified Institution

Placement of SEL equity at a significant premium of Rs 1907/share of face value Rs 10/each ), however the related party transactions are without any third party competitive bidding and are invariably at significantly higher prices than prevailing market prices. Even in cases where alternate offers from third parties were received, such offers were rejected in favour of Promoter owned companies and sometimes even at 300% higher costs. The Promoter owned companies made profits while Public Limited Suzlon Energy Limited continues to make losses.

17.

The Petitioners state that they were employed with Suzlon Energy Limited and were asked to coordinate the business of Shipping in Synefra

with a view to ensure that Limited exports

22

Suzlon

Energy

reached

worldwide

destinations in time and within budgeted costs. In such situations of conflicting interest and Petitioners state that decisions were taken in the interest of employer i.e. Public Listed Suzlon Synefra Eenrgy Limited, the Complainant Constructions

Engineering

and

Limited who is just a related party to Suzlon Energy Limited filed a criminal case alleging forgery, misappropriation and breach of trust against the Petitioners. The true position of the Petitioners is brought out in their

complaint which remains un-investigated.

18. Petitioners submit that during September 2008, Gaurav Bansal, CEO of SE Shipping Lines, Singapore, in active conspiracy with Tulsi Tanti and Kirti Vagadia, misrepresented to shipping world that SE Shipping Lines, Singapore was exclusive to Suzlon Energy Limiteds exports and could get guarantees signed by Tulsi Tanti himself (Annexure X is an email correspondence from Mr. Jaap of Ship Owing company M/s Beluga Shipping,

Germany and which is included in the charge sheet filed against the Petitioners ) thus could

charge significantly higher freights Energy Limited.

23

from

Suzlon

19. The Petitioners submit that the referred complaint was informed to Commissioner of Police, Pune and also to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone II by emails and no actions have been initiated so far (Annexure Y is copy of emails sent to Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pune).

20. The Petitioners further state that Petitioner no 1 was a key employee of Public Listed Suzlon Energy limited and was issued substantial number of equity shares from Promoter Quota prior to Suzlon Energy Limiteds IPO. He was further issued significant number of equity shares under ESOPs post IPO. He was holding upto 11 lac equity shares during 2006-2008 and even now he holds more than 2.10 lac shares of Suzlon Energy Limited.

21. Petitioners further state that the persons named in complaint of the Petitioners have a habit of destroying incriminating evidences. ( Annexure Z is an email communication from CFO of Suzlon Energy Limited and advisor to wherein he is instructing Mr. Tulsi Tanti destruction of

certain

sensitive emails

24

relating

to

Hansen Transmissions Limited). The Petitioners further submit that what is stated in this petition is only a tip of iceberg and that accounting fraud, forgery of documents and cheating investors, Banks and

other financial institutions etc by employees of Suzlon Energy Limited at the instance of Key Management persons is rampant and a thorough investigation would also reveal the financial crimes perpetrated by Suzlon Energy Limited and its related and associated companies on Public Financial Institutions like IDFC limited etc and public funds raised in London by listing Hansen Transmissions Limited, Belgium, which was at relevant time a 100% subsidiary of Suzlon Energy Limited.

22.

Being aggrieved by the deliberate lethargy of the Police and its complicity with original complainant in not converting Petitioners complaint in FIR, grave prejudice is being caused to the Petitioners, the Investing Public of the world and more particularly of this nation, the Petitioners beg to invoke the writ .

GROUNDS

25

1.

That non registration of

complaint of Petitioners

into FIR despite more than 4 months of officially lodging it and more than 36 months after submitting it to then Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate, there is every likelihood of valuable evidences having been tempered already and potential witnesses influenced much to the prejudice of the Petitioners and the Public of this nation.

2.

The

Petitioners

have

submitted

evidences

of

systematic destruction of evidences by Complainant and thus the delay in registration of FIR and commencement of investigation thereof is bound to adversely affect exposure of Indias biggest corporate fraud.

3.

The

complaint filed by the Petitioners discloses

cognizable offenses of the extreme gravity and seriousness against not only the investing public worldwide but also against Government of India and therefore needs thorough investigation by a competent

agency /officer.

4.

The complaint of Petitioners clearly sets out massive

diversion of funds from Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited to Tulsi Tanti family promoted companies and the

preliminary estimates of more Rs

26

650

crores

fraudulently diverted to Tanti family controlled companies apart from more than Rs 23,00 crores loss to Investing Public worldwide makes it an extremely serious offence of proportions bigger than ill famous Satyam Computer scam and therefore needs proper investigation.

5.

That it is more than 4 months since complaint was

re-filed but non registration of the same in FIR is causing prejudice to the Petitioners and the Public of this nation. 6. That the complainant is politically well connected

in the state having majority of its wind energy/related business in the state is using all connections to thwart the fair process of law to the prejudice of Petitioners.

7.

That the complainant is in habit of destroying

evidences and if immediate investigation is not ordered, valuable evidences may be lost.
8. The Petitioner therefore prays that :-

A)

That this Honble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct registration of Petitioners complaint into FIR under relevant sections of IPC.

B) That this Honble court be pleased to direct Investigation by a competent agency considering the fact that the named accused Persons and Companies are politically well connected, more so within the state of Maharashtra.

27

C) For such further and other reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper. For this act of kindness and justice the Petitioner shall as in duty bound forever pray.

Mumbai, Dated: Advocate for the Petitioners.

VERIFICATION

28

We, 1. Rajagopalan Sridhar and 2. Sanjeev Bangad, take oath and state on solemn affirmation that what is stated in the aforesaid application is true to our knowledge and we believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Pune on this

day of September 2012

DEPONENT 1

DEPONENT 2

Before me.

Identified by me.

Advocate.

29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012 DISTRICT: PUNE Rajagopalan Sridhar & Another ) .Petitioners VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Others ) Respondents SYNOPSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. No. Date Event ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. - The Petitioners are citizens of India and are residing at the aforementioned address. The Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 & 2 in C.R. No. 387 of 2009 lodged by Synfera Engineering & Construction Limited

(hereinafter referred to as the Complainant); through their authorized representative Mr Nilesh Vallabhdas Dhanani in Bundgarden Police Station stating that the accused

conspired to illegally siphon money from the business of the Complainant. 2. - It is a case of the Complainant that the Complainant Company was engaged in

shipping business during 2006-08 and it is the

30

submission petitioners complainant.

of the complainant that the are Ex-Employees of the

It is its further case that the

accused fraudulently diverted huge amounts and profits of the Complainant Company to the alleged Shell Company owned/controlled by the petitioners. It is further case that the accused with malafide intent created number of forged documents and electronic records. Also that the accused during the period between 2006 and 2008 cheated the complainant company by misrepresenting International

Clients to remit part of freight (for and on behalf of the Complainant company) in the Bank accounts with various overseas Banks including Swiss Bank belonging to various Shell companies incorporated by the accused in different parts of the world and such companies are owned and controlled by ex-employees of the complainant company. 3. - The Petitioners were arrested by the

investigating team led Investigating officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate, then Police Inspector at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune, on 18th September 2009 and prior to which the Petitioners filed a complaint detailing sequence of events and that

31

the

complaint of

the

complainant

was

malafide and filed with misleading facts and by suppressing/ concealing vital facts. The

complaint of Petitioners detailed how no loss was suffered by the complainant and listed various dealings which the Promoters and other senior management of Public listed Suzlon Energy Limited were indulging in to

divest/divert Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited of its profits to Promoter owned companies. 4. 05/05/2012 - The Petitioners complaint was not registered and therefore not investigated. Thereafter upon release on bail the Petitioners re-filed their complaint which contains substantial part of what was filed in writing with then

investigating officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate on 18th September 2009.. 5. 24th June 2012 Petitioner no 2 sent emails to Commissioner of Police, Pune and also to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pune requesting intervention in registration of FIR and also to explain misconduct of then Investigating officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate. Hence the present Writ Petition -

32 A)

ACTS REFERRED TO: 1) Criminal Procedure Code 1973. 2) Indian Penal Code.

B)

AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON: Nil at present. POINTS TO BE URGED: As contained in the grounds of the Petition.

C)

Mumbai, Dated: Advocate for the Petitioners.

33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012 DISTRICT: PUNE Rajagopalan Sridhar & Another ) .Petitioners VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Others ) Respondents SYNOPSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr.No. Annex. Particulars Page Nos. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) 2) ------Synopsis Memo of Petition

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LAST PAGE-